The Hawaiian gazette., 1887-05-31


invoice of Manila cigars of the value
of nine hundred and fifty-two dollars
1882: that on the third day of
December, 1886, plaintiffs withdrew
from bond ten thousand of said cigars
of the value OF one hundred and
nineteen dollars (S119), and paid to
defendant ten dollars per thousand;
that in addition to said duty defend
ant exacted and plaintiffs paid under
protest a further duty of % per cent.
upon the value Of said cigars amount
ing to the sum of twenty-nine I5-1O0
dollars; That plaintiff also in the
month of January, 1887, imported
and duly entered under bond at said
Custom House an invoice Of Havana
cigars of the value of six hundred
and thirty dollars (S630); that on the
9th day of said January, plaintiffs
Withdrew from bond said cigars and
paid a duty OF ten per cent. on the
same; that in addition to said duty
defendant exacted and plaintiffs paid
under protest further duty of %
per cent. upon the value of said cigars
amounting to the sum Of one hun
bred and tifty-seyen 50-100 dollars;
that defendant would not allow said
cigars to be withdrawn from bond
without the payment of said duties of
25 per cent.
plaintiffs claim that the law en-
acted at the session of 1856 to wit: so
much as relates to cigars, of section
2 of an Act approved October 10,
1856, entitled An Act amendatory of
Section 2 of Chapter 26 of the Session
Laws of 1878, relating to import du
ties upon Wines being Chapter "a of
said laws. is unconstitutional.
1T is agreed to request the Court
to reserve. the question of the consti-
nationality Of said portion of said law.
And that if said law is held good
Judgment shall be entered for the
defendant with costs; and if said law
IS held void as far as relates to cigars
Judgment shall be entered for the
plaintiffs for the sum OF one hundred
and eighty-seven 25-100 dollars
iS1S72 with costs"
The title of the Act concerning
which the question Of constitution
atty IS raised is An Act amendatory
Of Section of Chapter % Of the Ses
sion Laws of 1878, relating to import
duties upon wines
The title of the Act of 1878, which
is referred to is AN Act to amend An
Act entitled An act to increase the
import duties upon certain goods
approved the 9th day OF September,
1876" The certain goods" upon
which the duties are increased by
the Act are more than forty articles
or classes Of articles among them
three classes of wines. The Act of
1886 imposes specific duties on eight
classes of goods, including the three
classes Of wines.
Article II Of the Constitution,
reads: ITO avoid improper influences
which may result from intermixing
IN one and the same Act such things
as have no proper relation to each
other. every law shall embrace but
one object, and that shall be expressed
in the title" 4 Ike article IS found
in the constitutions Of a majority OF the
States Of the American Union, some
Of them using the term one subject
and some one object. The purpose of
this provision IS first to prevent h0dge-
p0dge or l2g-roIiHg legislation; second
to prevent surprise OF fraud upon the
legislature by means Of provisions in
bills of which the titles give no in
rimation, and Third to apprise the
people of proposed matters of legisla
ton. See Cooley's Const, Limita
tions, page 143.
It is clear that the title in the pre-
sent case is misleading and would
Illustrate the second and third objects
above proposed. 1t is declared by
this title that the law intended to be
amended is one relating to import
duties upon wines, and inferentially,
upon wines only. When the Act is
read by its title, this matter is what
IS presented to the attention of the
legislature Without the words re
lating to import duties upon vines
the title describes an Act amending a
specified Act of 1878 whatever sub
lectS may be included IN IL, but these
words being added must be considered
to restrict the scope Of the Act and of
the amendment. Says Cooley at page
149 Of the work cited above: The
courts cannot enlarge the scope OF
the title; they are vested with no
dispensing power; the constitution
has made the title the conclusive in
dex as to what shall have operation;
it is no answer to say that the title
might have been made more compre-
hensive. if in fact the legislature have
not seen fit to make it So"
The error in this title is not in its
insuficiency. As an amendatory Act
it might be considered sufficient if 1t
only referred to an original Act hav
ing a title properly describing the
subject matter See State V. Ran
som 10 Mo. rs, referred to at page 153
of l. s DIGEST New Series Vol Il